Thursday, February 09, 2006

The National Situation

Good evening. Thank you for inviting me tospeak at this very interesting gathering. I amhappy to share this podium with former Sen. Gregorio Honasan.

I am quite certain that we were all broughthere tonight by more or less the samecircumstances and the same concerns. We have themoney to buy newspapers and watch the eveningnews, and we have the time to reflect on theinformation they report. It is almost naturalfor us to worry about the direction our countryis taking. We worry for our families, and weworry especially for the future of our children.

Unfortunately, the rest of our people, trappedin the rigors of daily survival, are usuallyunable to think beyond the next meal. They arethe thousands that line up every day, rain orshine, outside TV stations, for the rare chanceto be chosen as contestants for the "Pera oBayong" portion of noontime game shows. Theywere the faces of the hungry and the desperate atthe Ultra stampede last Saturday morning. Theytoo often gripe about the callousness of theleadership of our country. But they do not havethe luxury of worrying about politics. And evenwhen they do, they feel powerless to influencethe course of events. They wait for elections,and for the largesse it brings, and that aboutsums up their political involvement.

Those who have the time to worry about politics-- like many of us here tonight -- are basicallyof two types: (a) those who ask in exasperationwhen all this political bickering would end; and(b) those who ask in exasperation when this presidency would end.

All over the country, forums like this arebeing organized by thoughtful citizens. They askmore or less the same questions: How will thisstalemate end? Whom can we trust? If she goes,who will replace her? How do we solve our mostbasic problems? How much time do we need toreform our political system? Is there hope forthe country? These are important questions: theybelong to the realm of politics. But I will alsohasten to say that politics is not the onlyattitude we can take towards the world.

Be that as it may, the forum tonight dealswith politics. I want to begin by defining thefunction of politics in society. Politics issociety's way of producing collectively-bindingdecisions. The important phrase here is"collectively-binding decisions" ­ decisions madein the name of all of us, and therefore bind allof us. Such decisions can be as innocuous aschanging the name of a provincial hospital or asmomentous as declaring war against anothercountry. They can be as high-profile as signinga peace accord with local insurgents, or aslow-profile as floating new dollar-denominatedbonds in the international bond market to covermaturing obligations and budget deficits. Theyare of different levels of importance, but, whenmade by government, they all equally bind us.

Politics is, in the first instance, the processby which a nation or a community determines whoshall be entrusted with the making of suchdecisions. There are at least two ways ofensuring that decisions made in the name of thewhole nation are honored by every citizen of a country.

The first is by making sure that such decisionsare made only by persons or agencies that have aclear mandate or the authority to make them. Thesecond is by making sure that such decisions are made in accordance with law.

Authority means legitimate power. Obviously,not all power is legitimate. Usurpers mayexercise power, but their power is notlegitimate, and so it is resisted. Tyrantsassume power on the basis of force, and whilethey may, for a while, coerce people intosubmission, their power will always remainunstable. Public officials elected fraudulentlymay exercise power, but their power willeventually be challenged. Legitimacy is crucialto the operation of a system because it isprecisely what assures compliance with collective decisions.

Systems, of course, operate on the basis of apresumption of legitimacy and regularity. That iswhy, when there is a challenge to legitimacy andregularity, the system has to act to dispel alldoubts. Illegitimate power has a corrosiveeffect on the system, and no matter how much itmay try to buy support, or fortify the throne ofbayonets on which it sits, it will always be opposed.

The point I want to stress is that whatever theform of politics may be in a society, its mainobjective is the same ­ how to ensure thatdecisions made by the rulers are collectively-binding.

When rulers are perceived to have mandatesenveloped in doubt, the political system heatsup. Time that should be spent in governance --in defining collective goals, in implementingthese goals and mobilizing public participationtowards their attainment ­ is instead squanderedin endless political communication. Unable tolegitimize their rule by established means,tyrants find themselves resorting to other meansto secure their hold on power. They may do thisby acts of selective remuneration, or by acts ofcalibrated coercion. They may survive in theshort-term but only at great cost to the existing institutional order.

Keeping these thoughts in mind, I want toexamine the roots of the present politicalcrisis. I will argue that at the center of thecurrent crisis is the whole question ofpresidential legitimacy that our institutionalorder has failed to resolve up to this time.

Let's go back a bit and review what happened.

The doubts began to surface as early as May orJune 2004, as the legislators from theadministration and the opposition parties wentthrough the rituals of a national canvassingprocess. The opposition repeatedly questionedthe authenticity of the certificates of canvassor CoCs from some disputed provinces. In atleast 15 provinces they demanded that the boxescontaining the supporting statements of votes orSoVs be opened to determine if the figuresmatched those on the CoCs. The objections wereduly "noted", but not one ballot box was allowedto be opened. The administration side arguedthat canvassing was a ministerial task, and thatthe proper venue for electoral protests involvingthe presidency and the vice presidency was theSupreme Court acting as Presidential Electoral Tribunal.

If this scene has a déjà vu ring to it, it isbecause the use of a controlled majority tooverride objections is very much reminiscent ofthe railroaded canvassing process at the BatasangPambansa in the 1986 snap election. Like Cory'ssupporters in 1986, FPJ's followers in 2004 sawthe futility of getting a reasonable hearinginside Congress and demanded that the protest bebrought before the parliament of thestreets. The tide of mass protests led directlyto Edsa. That was how Cory Aquino becamepresident 20 years ago. To his credit, the lateFPJ dissuaded his followers from protesting inthe streets. He brought his complaint to theSupreme Court, and paid the amount needed tore-open the ballot boxes. Unfortunately he diedbefore even the first election return could becounted. The justices promptly dismissed theprotest upon his death. There was only asymbolic legal closure, but the politicalquestion of who really won in the 2004 election remained unanswered.

By nature, political issues have a shelf lifeof only a few months. After the Supreme Courtdenied Susan Roces's petition to continue FPJ'sprotest, the issue was buried and almostforgotten. But five months later, in June 2005,the issue of legitimacy returned with vengeancefollowing the public circulation of the HelloGarci conversations ­ if only as cell phoneringbones at first. Malacanang was caughttotally unprepared. This showed in PressSecretary and Presidential Spokesman IgnacioBunye's initial attempt at a cover-up that was soclumsy and full of contradictions it was instantly disowned by the Palace.

The Garci Tapes contained more than a hundredconversations between a Comelec official whosounded very much like Commissioner VirgilioGarcillano and an assortment of politicians andpolitical brokers. About 10 of theseconversations were between Garcillano and someonewith the inimitable voice of GloriaMacapagal-Arroyo. These conversations arerevealing and damning. They indicate theexistence of a conspiracy to manipulate theresults of the election in the vote-richprovinces of Southern Mindanao. They stronglysuggest that Mrs. Arroyo herself seemed to havefull knowledge of the elaborate scheme to pad hervotes and shave those of her closest rival,Fernando Poe Jr. Resourceful journalists havescrutinized the content of these conversations,marking out the names, places, and eventsmentioned in the tapes, and establishing theirfactual basis. The conclusion, as one Newsbreakarticle so cogently put it, was: The shoe fits.

The first reaction from Malacanang was todismiss these conversations as cleverfabrications. Various agencies of governmenttried to stop the spread of the tapes bythreatening people with charges for violation ofthe Anti-Wiretapping Law. Yet on June 27, 2005,bowing to public pressure, Mrs. Arroyo came outon national television to apologize for what shecalled a "lapse in judgment" ­ for calling aComelec official while the canvassing was goingon. Her intention, she claimed, was not to cheatbut only to protect her votes. She said nothingmore about the tapes. In subsequent interviewsshe evaded all questions about these wiretapped,saying she was ready to face any impeachmentcharge that would be filed against her.

The story of these tapes remains open. The manwho initially confessed to having taken them outof the ISAFP, T. Sgt Vidal Doble, returned to thecustody of his unit in the ISAFP, and has sincedenied having anything to do with thetapes. While ISAFP is widely believed to haveperformed the wiretap, no one has come out totell the full story. To this day, the ISAFPinsists it has no capability to wiretap cell phone conversations.

The central character in the wiretappedconversations ­ Commissioner Garcillano ­ wentmissing shortly after the scandal brokeout. Five months later, he reappeared,accompanied by armed men who later turned out tobe local policemen. The police offered himsanctuary while he waited to face the Housecommittees that were investigating him. Theaccount he gave in the House was one of studiedevasiveness. He admitted talking to GMAonce. This was not unusual, he said, becauseother politicians, including those from theopposition, also talked to him. But he could notrecall if the conversations caught in the Garcitapes actually took place. He wasn't even sureif that was his voice. He emphaticallymaintained that he did not cheat for anyone,least of all for the president. He went intohiding, he said, because he felt that his lifewas in danger. The investigation could squeezenothing from this foxy operator, who seemed tofeel at home in the company of the nation's politicians.

This is the first issue. It was so powerful itbrought out the first massive demonstrationsagainst Mrs. Arroyo. It triggered theresignation of key members of her Cabinet, aswell as the withdrawal of support from key allieslike former president Aquino and Senate PresidentFranklin Drilon, as well as a section of theinfluential Makati Business Club.

The start of the impeachment proceedings inSeptember brought the issue back to the legalarena, where Mrs. Arroyo maintained a firm gripon the loyalty of her congressional allies. Theimpeachment complaints, as we all know, werekilled at the committee level, usingtechnicalities and parliamentary maneuvers thatrelied on the power of the majority vote. Thesubstantive charges against Mrs. Arroyo werenever taken up. Again, only a symbolic closurewas achieved, and so the issue remains politically alive.

The second issue revolves around the partisaninvolvement of key officials of the military inthe 2004 election. This is being investigated bythe committee of Sen. Rodolfo Biazon. Thepurpose is clear-cut: To get to the bottom of thewiretapping and the involvement of some generalsin the election in Mindanao. The investigationopened with the revealing testimonies of Gen.Gudane and Col. Balutan, both of whom weresanctioned by the AFP for appearing before theSenate without authority from theirsuperiors. The committee has hit a blankwall. Military officials, citing EO 464 whichbars top government officials from appearing inany congressional investigation without priorpermission from the president, have declined toappear before any legislative hearing.

The third issue is the use of public funds tofinance the presidential campaign of Mrs.Arroyo. Even during the campaign, the fundingfor the PhilHealth cards that Mrs. Arroyo wasdistributing in the course of her provincialsorties had come under question. So too theimproper utilization of the Road Users Tax forthe emergency employment of street sweepers inevery barangay of the country just before the2004 election. But the one investigation thathas yielded the most scandalous findings on themisuse of public money for the presidentialcampaign of Mrs. Arroyo is the hearing on theso-called Fertilizer Fund being conducted by thecommittee of Senator Jun Magsaysay. The P728million fund is part of the almost P3 billionfund of the so-called GMA ­ Ginintuang MasaganangAni -- program. A significant portion of thismoney appears to have been sourced from theconfiscated Marcos Swiss bank deposits. Theseized Marcos assets had been previouslyearmarked by law for the agrarian reformprogram. Except for the portion of 8 billionpesos set aside for victims of human rightsviolations, the rest of the Marcos moneyamounting to about P27 billion appears to havevanished into thin air sometime between 2004 and2005. The admission made by Budget Secretary Neriand officials from the Commission on Audit soangered former Senator Jovito Salonga that lastJanuary 30, he felt compelled to write Mrs.Arroyo a letter. In that letter, Sen. Salongatold Mrs. Arroyo: "We who do not seek any favorfrom you are constrained to conclude that toremain in power, you (1) prejudiced the welfareof our poor, landless farmers and (2) ignored thesacrifices of many persons who devoted all theirGod-given resources in terms of time, energy,effort and the little knowledge and talent sothey might help recover the more than 680 milliondollars from the Swiss Marcos deposits."

The one person who is expected to shed light onthe nature of the Fertilizer Fund, its sourcesand its mode of disbursement, is formerAgriculture Usec. Jocelyn "Joc-joc" Bolante, aknown friend and associate of First GentlemanMike Arroyo. But, taking his cue fromCommissioner Garcillano, Bolante has also made himself scarce.

These three issues lie at the center of the current political crisis.

In stable societies, political questions likethese ­ that challenge the basic legitimacy ofthe sitting president ­ are ultimately resolvedby election, or by acts of Congress orParliament, or they are referred back to thelegal and judicial system for furtherinvestigation, prosecution, andadjudication. But in young societies like ours ­where the institutional spheres are not yet fullydifferentiated ­ legal institutions andgovernment agencies tend to be heavilycontaminated by partisan politics. Thiscompromises their independence. Instead of beingable to put an orderly closure to unresolvedpolitical questions, these institutions aredragged into the political arena and lose theircredibility. Consequently, legal issues arere-politicized, and the whole process repeatsitself, leaving in its wake the debris of institutional wreckage.

Take a look at some of the major institutionalcasualties in this unending political crisissince Mrs. Arroyo succeeded to the presidency in 2001:

1. First there is the Supreme Court. Membersof the Court came to the Edsa Shrine at noontimeof Jan. 20, 2001 to administer the oath of officeto GMA, even before there was any cleardetermination that a vacancy had occurred in theoffice of the president. Without signing aformal letter of resignation, Erap leftMalacanang at around 2:30 p.m. He later claimedthat he had not resigned but only taken a leaveof absence. A few weeks later, the same SC hadto adjudicate a case challenging the legality ofMrs. Arroyo's assumption of the presidency. Thejustices unanimously upheld the legality of Mrs.Arroyo's accession to the presidency, but theycould not agree on the reasons. Many of thejustices were severely skeptical and critical ofthe use of people power to effect a change ingovernment. The majority decision ruled thatErap had resigned "constructively" ­ a novelconcept that could not be easily explained to a perplexed public.

If it was quick to state its position on whatwas clearly a very dynamic situation in January2001, the Supreme Court seemed extremely hesitantto intervene in 2005 when members of the Housecommittee investigating the impeachment chargescould not agree on the correct interpretation ofthe phrase "impeachment proceeding" as found inthe 1987 Constitution. What constitutes animpeachment proceeding? When is it deemedinitiated? If three impeachment complaints arefiled against the same public official for moreor less the same reasons within hours of oneanother, would taking them up on the same day beconstrued as initiating three separateimpeachment proceedings, and is thereforeprohibited? Twice, a lawyer asked the SupremeCourt to disallow the ruling coalition's absurdinterpretation of the constitutional provisionbarring the initiation of impeachment proceedingsagainst the same public official more than once ayear. The Court said the question waspremature. Then it said nothing more on theissue after the defective Lozano impeachment complaint was thrown out.

By the same token, the SC has so far failed torule on the constitutionality of the so-calledCalibrated Preventive Response policy (CPR) ofdealing with protest demonstrations, and of thegag order contained in Executive Order 464.

2. Second, there is, of course, the Comelecitself ­ the one legal institution that the CoryAquino government in the post-Marcos years triedvery hard to rebuild so that its neutral andprofessional character may be preserved. Acredible Comelec is the linchpin of arepresentative democracy. Mrs. Arroyo has donemuch to erode the Comelec's credibility byappointing to it individuals of unsavoryreputation, not the least of whom is AttyVirgilio Garcillano himself. The man had workedhis way up the Comelec bureaucracy, and gained areputation as somebody who has mastered theelectoral terrain of Mindanao. But another imageconsistently stuck to him ­ that of architect of"dagdag-bawas." Thus, when he was appointed tothe Comelec as one of the commissioners barely 3months before the 2004 election, no less thanformer Comelec Chairman Christian Monsod appealedto the president to withdraw hisappointment. The same plea was made by a victimof dagdag-bawas ­ Senator Nene Pimentel. ButMrs. Arroyo would not be dissuaded. She was sucha firm believer in Garcillano's capabilities.

3. The third is the Armed Forces of thePhilippines. Outside of Marcos, no otherpresident perhaps has so brazenly enlisted theservices of key officials of the AFP for partisanpurposes than Mrs. Arroyo. Again, the GarciTapes are very incriminating. In oneconversation, Garci was complaining that thecheating operations in some towns were verycrudely done because the ones who were assignedto perform these tasks were inexperiencedsoldiers. Several names of high-ranking officerswere mentioned in the tapes. By a strangecoincidence, except for Gudane who retired,almost all of them were subsequently appointed to cushy positions in the AFP.

4. The fourth is the Ombudsman. This is aconstitutional office that is invested with thepower to initiate investigations and to prosecuteerring public officials. When the SC ruled thatthe Comelec computerization project was illegaland ordered Comelec to recover the money it hadpaid, it also directed the Ombudsman toinvestigate the culpability of the Commissionersand to prosecute them. This has not happened, asfar as I know. The Ombudsman could also haveinitiated the investigation of ISAFP's(Intelligence Service of the Armed Forces of thePhilippines) involvement in wiretapping. Itcould have looked as well into the use of publicfunds like the Road Users Tax and the FertilizerFund for the election campaign of thepresident. We have not seen any suchinitiative. One wonders if the people at thecenter of all these controversies know somethingwe don't when they bravely challenge theiraccusers to sue them in court and file the necessary charges.

Somebody ­ I think it is Sen. Kiko Pangilinan ­recently filed a bill calling for the creation ofa powerful office of an American-styleIndependent Counsel, that would have theauthority to mobilize agencies and offices ofgovernment to put together a case againstaccountable public officials. Maybe if we canfind enough Kenneth Starrs in our midst who wouldnot be deterred by the powerful, there might be areason for this bill. But I am not certain ifthis is the right answer to the dysfunctionality of our institutions.

Let me re-state my basic thesis here. THE CRUXOF THE PRESENT CRISIS consists in the fact thatthe institutions in the political and the legalsystems of our society have failed to arrive at areasonable closure of the issues thrust uponthem. The crisis of legitimacy of Ms Arroyo hasled to a questioning of all her decisions andactions. Her stonewalling on a number ofimportant questions ­ the use of gag orders andof diversionary tactics like charter change ­ hasled to a generalized crisis of credibility. Thishas spawned more issues than the political systemcan handle at any given time withoutoverheating. It is interesting that the economyseems to be faring well in comparison. Thecrisis of the political system may remainisolated for a time, but it may eventually engulfthe whole system. It is difficult to say howlong the system can bear the pressure from one of its parts.

What seems clear at this point is that:

- More and more people are demandingeither an end to all bickering or the outright removal of Mrs. Arroyo.

- More and more people are losing faithin the system's capacity to resolve politicalquestions within the bounds of the Constitution.

- More and more people are disenchantednot only with the present administration but alsowith the political opposition. They are turningto the Armed Forces and asking them to intervene.

Having gone through two people power upheavals,our people are not unfamiliar with extra-legalsolutions involving both military and peoplepower interventions. They see people power asthe Filipino way of compensating for theinadequacies of our institutions, even as theyare fully aware of the many problems it spawns.

WHAT IS TO BE DONE?

What is to be done or how we should respond tothe crisis is a function of how we look at thesituation. The Catholic Bishops Conference ofthe Philippines (CBCP) explains the crisis as theresult of the erosion of our moral values. Thebishops are calling for a renewal of our publiclife. This is a long-term process, and one canunderstand why our religious leaders have couchedthe problem in specifically moral terms, even asthey are conscious of not overstepping the boundsof their authority. The bishops insist that thesolution can come from the relentless pursuit ofthe truth by the community as a whole.

My own view is quite different from that of thebishops. Like them, I believe that our publicvalues have changed. But, unlike them, I believethat they have changed not necessarily for theworse. On the contrary, I believe that thecrisis in our political life arises preciselyfrom the growing refusal of many ordinaryFilipinos from all classes to tolerate patronage,fraud, political bossism, corruption, andmisgovernance of our public life. The rulingclasses of our country ­ the ones who are used tocynical wheeling and dealing, to corruption, tointimidation, and the exploitation of massignorance and dependence ­ are beginning todiscover that they can no longer rule in the oldway. Every election year they find that they haveto cheat harder in order to get elected.

Politicians like Ms. Arroyo cannot seem tounderstand why cheating in elections has becomeso suddenly wrong, or why taking kickbacks fromgovernment contracts and pork barrel projects issuddenly frowned upon. They wake up one morning,and they discover to their dismay that our peopleare demanding better government. On more thanone occasion, Mrs. Arroyo candidly lamented thedegeneration of our political system. It hasbecome such, she said, that one cannot embark ona political career and expect to emerge from itwith clean hands. "He who is without sin," shesays quoting from the Bible, "cast the first stone."

Mrs. Arroyo must have been so blinded byambition that she failed to read what theplacards of the young people who trooped to Edsain January 2001 were saying: Goodgovernment. Accountable government. Competentgovernment. They did not go to Edsa because theyloved GMA; they went to Edsa because they thoughtthey deserved a president they could admire, onewho could properly discharge the responsibilitiesof a young aspiring modern nation in a complex world.

In their attempt to appease the public, the olddying class led by GMA, FVR, and Jose de Veneciaare offering to change the form of government,little realizing that the people have moved onenotch higher. They now demand a replacement ofthe whole political class itself. Only now, Ithink, are the politicians beginning to realizethat the public is not just seeking to change theform of government, or just to overthrow GloriaMacapagal Arroyo and replace her with theOpposition. Filipinos want a whole new set ofleaders, imbued with a whole new set of valuesand capabilities. They want a new nationequipped for survival in a globalized world they are just starting to discover.

Am I painting a fictional image of Filipinoconsciousness? I do not think so. If ourpolitical values had not improved, we would nothave this crisis. We would allow the politiciansto talk it over among themselves, to strike amodus vivendi (what trapos call a "win-win"solution) that would benefit every individualpolitician in the country. The rest of us,ordinary citizens, would all retreat into ourhomes and perhaps amuse ourselves by theirantics. But no, more and more of us arestaunchly refusing to let our country to be runby the same breed of cynical politicians.

Our people are better educated today. They aremore connected to the outside world. They knowhow other societies work. They have seen more ofthe world than the generation of theirparents. And, let us not forget, you cannot sendout more than 10% of your mature population tolive and work in other societies, and expect themto remain unchanged in the way they think of theresponsibilities of government. What they bringhome from abroad are not just remittances; theyusually bring back with them a new consciousnessof what societies can be like when they are better run.

Politics is basically an arena ofcommunication. Our political system today ismore complex: it is no longer dominated bytraditional political parties. There are newvoices that are making themselves heard ­ fromthe social movements, the non-governmentorganizations, people's organization, etc. EdsaI and Edsa II are symptomatic of the emergence ofan educated population that no longer feels boundby traditional political rules. If we lookclosely, we may see Edsa I and II asmanifestations of a middle class politicalimpatience never seen before in ourcountry. These events are guided by a vision ofmodernity that however needs to be enriched by social justice.

How to bring this vision about is the bigquestion. I believe that as a long-range vision,it is not necessarily hitched to any political project.

All over the country, people are meeting andtalking in forums like this. The vision of a newnation is taking shape in these meetings. We arealready living in a post-Gloria era. Gloria ishistory. The reign of the trapos is coming to an end.

How Mrs. Arroyo will eventually go and when, isprobably only a small footnote now in thesediscussions. Whether it is by a snap election,or by people power in combination with a militarymutiny ­ is perhaps no longer the importantquestion. The question that people are askingis: Who will replace her? But, I do not takethat to mean a simple search for alternativefaces. I take that to mean: What kind of agendafor national renewal will bring us forward? Whatare our basic and urgent tasks as a people? Ifwe take care of the agenda, I believe the right faces will come forward.

I would like to end by advancing four basictasks that I have heard repeatedly in various fora:

First, to end the scourge of absolute povertyonce and for all, no matter what it takes. Thestampede of the poor in Ultra is only a grimreminder of this unjust reality we must all help to end.

Second, to educate everyone of our people,especially the young, in order to equip them forliving in a highly competitive world.

Third, to rebuild the physical infrastructureof our country, and to protect its environment from long-term damage.

And lastly, to create stable institutionsappropriate to a complex and modern society -- ina climate of freedom, tolerance, and openness.

If we remain focused and committed to such anagenda of necessary transformation, I have everyreason to believe that the search for new leaderswill take care of itself. The quest for changewill spawn new political formations and new political parties.

Having said that, I will hasten to add that itwould be a mistake to think that one needs to bea politician to be able to contribute to the realization of these urgent tasks.